
Click Here To Continue
Monday, June 4, 2012
There is No Language Without Deceit

Nothing or Everything


Monday, May 14, 2012
Scapegoats


Personal Satisfaction

Can
anything in this world just help for helping, or is there a true benefit in it
for helping?
Dawkins
attempts to answer all these questions I have during Chapter 10. He presents
the reader with real-life scenarios where animals form some sort of alliance,
or help each other in some way. He gives the example of the alarm call between
beards, where he discusses two possible scenarios: one he calls the cave (Kay-vee)
theory, where a bird in a flock sees a predator before any other and even
before the predator sees them and is faced with the dilemma of should he fly
away avoiding the predator, although he would be in danger by removing himself
from the flock, or alerting the whole flock to stay quite so the predator
doesn't see any of them. What would be the best choice? This situation is a bit
similar to the game prisoner's dilemma. If both the bird and the flock
cooperate, most likely is that all the birds will be safe, as if in prisoner's
dilemma both would choose to cooperate. The analogy is broken right there
though, because if the bird leaves without saying anything, he is not really
deflecting and the flock isn't really cooperating. Although the bird could be more
benefited by this choice. Why? Because he gets to hide while the flock is still
in potential danger. But the potential danger the bird will experience if he
leaves is greater, because most likely he will be noticed by the predator and
he will be by himself. So ultimately, helping the flock has a greater benefit
for him: "From a purely selfish point of view the best policy for the
individual who spots the hawk first is to hiss a quick warning to his
companions, and so shut them up and reduce the chance that they will be
inadvertently summon the hawk into his own vicinity." Right there my
questions are starting to be answered, the bird didn't help the flock because
he wanted their benefit. He helped them because his benefit would be greater
than if he didn't.
The other
theory that Dawkins presents is what he calls "never break ranks."
What's this theory? In fact it is very very similar to the cave theory, but
instead of alerting the flock to stay quite and wait for the predator to pass,
the predator is already incoming and he is presented with the dilemma of should
he fly away for protection or alert the whole flock to fly away. Again, if he
leaves by himself he increases his potential danger by being alone, but if he
stays and says nothing, expecting to be protected by being in a flock, he is
still in danger. So again, his best option is to help the whole flock by
alerting them so they all fly away. When they all fly away, he is still
escaping, but no longer alone, so he isn't in more danger than if he left
alone. And yet again, my questions are answered with a no, no we don't help
each other just for helping each other, there must be a benefit.
![]() |
Does the altruist helo the sick person JUST to make him feel better, or because the altruist himself feels better by helping the sick person feel better? |
This
"do help each other for helping each other" idea takes me back to the
prisoner's dilemma game we played in class for experimental points. When I
played, the person I wasp playing with (Mateo) and I chose to cooperate in
every round. Just like the bird that saw the hawk first would benefit the most
by cooperating and alerting the whole flock, Mateo and I benefited the most by
always cooperating. Of course, any of us could've decided to deflect in any
moment and win 5 points rather than the 3 points for cooperating. The
similarity with the birds scenario is striking: if Mateo or I deflected, we
were in danger of losing points if the other one also deflected, but also had a
greater advantage if the other one cooperated. But instead of risking loosing
points, we decided to play it "safe" and we both ended with a
relatively high amount of points. We didn't help each other selflessly, we
didn't help just because we wanted to help. We cooperated because we saw our
"survival" opportunities were higher if we both cooperated than of we
betrayed each other.
With
Dawkins' examples, and my experience with Mateo, I can actually answer the
questions I had in the beginning of the blog with tranquility. We don't help
selflessly, there's always some kind of benefit in it: whether it's getting the
most money in a business partnership, or the most points in a game, or
surviving a hawk attack, or simply personal satisfaction. Or maybe, all of the
above options lead to personal satisfaction, and that's why we choose to help
other individuals.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Passive Voice
Level 1: Directions: Change the sentences below to the passive voice.
Children cannot open these bottles easily.
These bottles cannot be easily opened by children.
The government built a road right outside her front door.
A road was built by the government right outside her door
Mr. Ross broke the antique vase as he walked through the store.
The antique vase was broken by Mr. Ross as he walked through the store.
When she arrived, the changes amazed her.
The changes amazed her when she arrived.
The construction workers are making street repairs all month long.
Street repairs are being made by construction workers all month long.
The party will celebrate his retirement.
His retirement will be celebrated in the party.
His professors were discussing his oral exam right in front of him
His oral exam was being discussed by the doctors in front of him.
My son ate all the homemade cookies.
All the homemade cookies were eaten by my son.
Corrosion had damaged the hull of the ship.
The hull of the ship had been damaged by corrosion.
Some children were visiting the old homestead while I was there.
The old homestead was being visited by some children when I was there.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Write Now: In this short film how do words relate to images?
In this short film, words contribute to the images being shown. For example when the kid says he will "run away," the video turns to show a plane, birds and a fly, which could very easily run/fly away. Those images or objects relate to the words the kid said. If someone wants to run away from where he/she is, that person will be likely to take a plane. Another example is When the priest says "let there be light" and then the video turned to show a small light turning on, then a big light turning off, and then it showed lightning and the stars. The words are somehow foreshadowing the next images that will appear in the film.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Cosimo de' Medici: A Mere Commoner

This scene is a contrast to when Candide is visiting Eldorado, which is Voltaire’s utopia: there is no religion, no one is forced to do anything, and most importantly, the king greets everyone as his equals. That’s how he wishes all noblemen or aristocrats to be, not like these five kings who mourn all they lost but still have more than most people. The valuables Candide acquired in Eldorado only have value in the outside world, obviously, but how much value do they have to Candide? I mean, he just gives away a diamond that is worth more than any of those kings had!
![]() |
Cosimo de' Medici |
There is yet another interesting point of view for this scene and this quote. I wouldn’t see it as a mockery, but rather Voltaire acknowledging the facts of his era. The fact that Candide, a person who isn’t a nobleman or a king of any sort, has more money than those who are kings depicts the rapid rise of capitalism in Europe. Merchants or other “commoners” rapidly gained immense amounts of riches, even more than kings did, and thus their influence upon society was gradually become less. For example the Medici family (House of Medici) in Florence: they were a banking family who rapidly gained control over the Republic of Florence.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)